Waste-to-Resource System Design for

Low-Carbon Circular Economy Siming

You
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/waste-to-resource-system-design-for-low-carbon-circ
ular-economy-siming-you/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Circular Economy: From Waste Reduction to Value

Creation Karen Delchet-Cochet

https://ebookmass.com/product/circular-economy-from-waste-
reduction-to-value-creation-karen-delchet-cochet/

Waste Valorisation: Waste Streams in a Circular Economy

Carol Sze Ki Lin

https://ebookmass.com/product/waste-valorisation-waste-streams-
in-a-circular-economy-carol-sze-ki-lin/

System on Chip Interfaces for Low Power Design 1st

Edition Mishra

https://ebookmass.com/product/system-on-chip-interfaces-for-low-
power-design-1st-edition-mishra/

Biomass, Biofuels, Biochemicals: Circular Bioeconomy:

Technologies for Waste Remediation Sunita Varjani

https://ebookmass.com/product/biomass-biofuels-biochemicals-
circular-bioeconomy-technologies-for-waste-remediation-sunita-
varjani/
The Political Economy of the Low-Carbon Transition:
Pathways Beyond Techno-Optimism 1st Edition Peadar
Kirby

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-political-economy-of-the-low-
carbon-transition-pathways-beyond-techno-optimism-1st-edition-
peadar-kirby/

Implementing the Circular Economy for Sustainable

Development 1st Edition Hans Wiesmeth

https://ebookmass.com/product/implementing-the-circular-economy-
for-sustainable-development-1st-edition-hans-wiesmeth/

Building materials in a circular economy: The case of

wood waste as CO2-sink in bio concrete Lucas Rosse
Caldas

https://ebookmass.com/product/building-materials-in-a-circular-
economy-the-case-of-wood-waste-as-co2-sink-in-bio-concrete-lucas-
rosse-caldas/

Circular Design for Zero Emission Architecture and

Building Practice Marwa Dabaieh

https://ebookmass.com/product/circular-design-for-zero-emission-
architecture-and-building-practice-marwa-dabaieh/

Current Developments in Biotechnology and

Bioengineering: Smart Solutions for Wastewater: Road-
mapping the Transition to Circular Economy Giorgio
Mannina
https://ebookmass.com/product/current-developments-in-
biotechnology-and-bioengineering-smart-solutions-for-wastewater-
road-mapping-the-transition-to-circular-economy-giorgio-mannina/
WASTE-TO-RESOURCE
SYSTEM DESIGN FOR
LOW-CARBON
CIRCULAR ECONOMY
This page intentionally left blank
WASTE-TO-RESOURCE
SYSTEM DESIGN FOR
LOW-CARBON
CIRCULAR ECONOMY

SIMING YOU
James Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright Ó 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any

means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the
Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the
Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our
website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under
copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research
and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods,
professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and
knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or
experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be
mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they
have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or
editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a
matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of
any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-822681-0

For information on all Elsevier publications visit our website at

https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Susan Dennis

Editorial Project Manager: Hilary Carr
Production Project Manager: R.Vijay Bharath
Cover Designer: Christian J. Bilbow

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

Contents

Chapter 1 The waste challenge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Chapter 2 Waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2. Agricultural waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Municipal solid waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4. Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Waste-to-resource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Rural waste management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 3 Waste-to-energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2. Incineration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3. Pyrolysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4. Gasification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5. Anaerobic digestion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Chapter 4 Waste-to-biohydrogen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2. Biohydrogen production technologies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3. Downstream processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
vi Contents

Chapter 5 Waste-to-biomethane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2. Biogas production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3. Biogas cleanup and upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 6 Waste-to-bioethanol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2. Saccharification and fermentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3. Pretreatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4. Yeasts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5. Further development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Chapter 7 Waste-to-biodiesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
2. Biodiesel properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
3. Biodiesel classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4. Biodiesel impacts on soil and water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
5. Biodiesel production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
6. Whole process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Chapter 8 Waste-to-biochar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
2. Waste-to-biochar technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
3. Biochar system design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

Chapter 9 System design: costebenefit analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
2. Mathematical principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
 Contents vii

3. Economic feasibility of waste-to-resource

development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
4. Uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

Chapter 10 System design: life cycle assessment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
2. LCA procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
3. LCA of waste-to-resource developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
4. Uncertainty analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208

Chapter 11 System optimization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
2. Multiobjective optimization methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Chapter 12 Perspectives of future development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
This page intentionally left blank
The waste challenge
1
Abstract
This chapter gives an overview of the overall waste management
challenge and highlights the importance of sustainable waste manage-
ment. It explains the existing waste management hierarchy strategy and
the roles of waste-to-resource development in managing the waste that
cannot be handled by the “reduce, reuse, and recycle” (3R) methods. It
also introduces the potential factors that need to be considered upon the
design of waste-to-resource development with a special focus on public
engagement, economics, and environmental impacts. Finally, it presents
a summary of the scope and content arrangement of the book.

Keywords: Climate change; Sustainable development goals; Sustainable

waste management; Waste management hierarchy; Waste-to-resource
technologies; Whole system and supply chain design.

1. Introduction
Sustainable waste management (SWM) is a worldwide chal-
lenge and is calling for effective actions under the socioeconomic
and environmental pressures of enormous waste production. The
rates of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation in developed
and developing countries were reported to be 521.95e759.2 kg
per person per year (kpc) and 109.5e525.6 kpc, respectively
(Karak et al., 2012). About 2.01 billion tonnes of MSW are gener-
ated annually, and it is estimated that at least 33% of the genera-
tion are not managed in an environmentally safe manner (Kaza
et al., 2018). In view of the continuous economic growth and pop-
ulation expansion, the waste generation will keep increasing and
it is expected that 2.2 billion tonnes of MSW will be generated per
annum by 2025 worldwide (Hoornweg & Bhada-Tata, 2012). The
increasing pile-up of waste pose a realistic threat to the environ-
ment, ecosystems, and human welfare if proper waste manage-
ment practices and facilities are not in place.
The climate change crisis is closely associated with waste gen-
eration management in various aspects, i.e., methane emissions
of organic waste landfill, emission abatement via waste reuse,
recycling, and reduction, renewable and low carbon resource

Waste-to-Resource System Design for Low-Carbon Circular Economy. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822681-0.00005-0

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1
2 Chapter 1 The waste challenge

recovery from waste, emissions rated to the transportation of

waste, etc. (Ackerman, 2000). The carbon saving potential has
become one of the most significant factors that has been consid-
ered upon the design of SWM approaches. On the other hand,
climate change can also influence the practicing and conse-
quences of SWM with changes in global temperature, annual pre-
cipitation, and sea levels rendering conventional waste
management practices less effective. For example, the rise in tem-
perature may increase the fire risk from combustible waste (e.g.,
composting) at open sites, more frequent extreme weather condi-
tions may increase the health and safety risks of waste operators
who implement waste management, and the rise in the sea level
poses a risk of seawater intrusion to coastal landfills and washing
away floating waste, leading to marine waste (e.g., plastics) pollu-
tion (Bebb & Kersey, 2003).
SWM is essential to achieving the United Nations’ sustainable
development goals (SDGs) and is closely related to such SDGs as
Decent Work and Economic Growth (SDG8), Sustainable Cities
and Communities (SDG11), and Sustainable Consumption and
Production (SDG12) (Robert et al., 2005). This is reflected by its
significant socioeconomic and environmental consequences.
Waste mismanagement can cause serious environmental issues
such as heavy metal pollution in ecosystems (e.g., water, plants,
and soil) and marine plastic pollution via field dumping, and
pollutant (e.g., CO, CO2, SO, NO, particulate matters, etc.) emis-
sions via open field burning (Ferronato & Torretta, 2019). As local
and global populations continue to expand, so as will the require-
ments and strain on waste infrastructure, meaning the costs of
waste mismanagement will increase. It was predicted that the
costs for SWM globally would increase from US$205.4 billion per
year to around US$375.5 billion in 2025 (Hoornweg & Bhada-
Tata, 2012).
A hierarchical strategy has been proposed and implemented
for promoting SWM (See Fig. 1.1). On the top of the hierarchy,
the “reduce, reuse, and recycle” (3R) methods are regarded as a
long-term strategy to reduce waste pollution toward the transition
from a traditional linear economy to a circular one (Geng et al.,
2019). Specifically, the 3R strategy serves to protect the environ-
ment, promote sustainable development, and improve resource
utilization efficiency, and aims to achieve a closed resource loop
within the circular economy model by lessening the pressure on
the stock of resources (Ioannidis et al., 2021). However, consid-
ering the varied composition and value of waste as well as the
 Chapter 1 The waste challenge 3

Figure 1.1 Illustration of the hierarchical strategy for SWM.

economic profitability requirement of waste management, the 3R

strategy alone is insufficient to curb the rapid waste accumulation
and its increasing threat to the environment, ecosystems, and so-
cieties, especially given limited waste management infrastructure
and lack of plans actually in place. Complementary measures are
necessary to handle the waste that is not covered by the 3R strat-
egy and achieve resource (energy and chemicals) recovery from
waste and end-of-life disposal. These measures are less favored
as compared to 3R in the waste management hierarchy but are
essential components of the whole SWM chain (Lombardi et al.,
2015).
Conventional practices for handling waste that is not reduce-
able, reusable, or recyclable rely on landfill and incineration
which are still playing a major role in some parts of the world.
Globally, around 66.6% of MSW was disposed of in open dump-
sites or landfills (Fischedick et al., 2014). According to the UK gov-
ernment statistics, landfills are the second most used waste
treatment in the United Kingdom, with 24.4% of waste being
disposed of by landfills in 2016 (DEFRA, 2021). Landfill is losing
its appeal due to adverse environmental impacts. For example,
in Europe and the United States, landfills account for 20% of
anthropogenic CH4 emissions, and are the second and third
largest CH4 emission sources, respectively (Mønster et al., 2019).
This number is 8%, also nonnegligible, from a global perspective
(Blanco et al., 2014). The landfill leachate containing pollutants
like heavy metals, organic, xenobiotics, and inorganic poses a
contamination risk to the soil and groundwater in nonsanitary
landfills and uncontrolled dumpsites (Negi et al., 2020). Air
4 Chapter 1 The waste challenge

surrounding landfill sites can affect local communities as the

smell is unpleasant and the soil in the area may be saturated
with chemicals or hazardous substances. The European Commis-
sion proposed to phase out landfilling by 2025 for recyclable waste
(e.g., plastics, paper, metals, glass, and biowaste) in nonhazardous
waste landfills and reduce the landfilled municipal waste to 10%
or less of the total amount of waste generated by 2035 (EC, 2018).
Waste-to-energy technologies play a critical role in diverting
waste from direct landfill. According to the International Energy
Agency, waste-to-energy systems are one of the promising solu-
tions toward a low carbon future via the decarbonization of en-
ergy production which is the dominant contributor to
greenhouse gas emissions (IEA, 2013). Waste incineration is being
widely employed in both developed and developing countries.
There are about 1179 MSW incineration plants around the world
with a total capacity over 700,000 tonnes per day and most of the
plants are in the European Union, the United States, and East Asia
(Lu et al., 2017). Incinerators using energy recovery techniques
have been used in SWM development to help recover electricity
and/or heat from waste while simultaneously reducing the mass
and volume of waste sent to landfills. Some typical advantages
of the incineration technologies include the effective reduction
of waste volume (by 90%) and mass (by 75%), elimination of path-
ogens, flexibility in feedstock selection, and energy production
(Lino & Ismail, 2018). Their disadvantages include high capital
and operational costs, significant pollutant emissions, and
requiring mandatory treatment of flue gas (Gabbar et al., 2018).
Additionally, there exists widespread negative public perception
about its emissions of pollutants such as dioxin carcinogen, which
needs to be abated to enhance the public acceptance of the tech-
nology (Makarichi et al., 2018).
Alternative waste-to-energy technologies have been devel-
oped to achieve lower pollutant emissions or to improve the en-
ergy recovery from some specific types of waste. For example,
gasification is a thermochemical process where carbonaceous
waste materials are converted into synthesis gas or syngas (a
mixture of H2, CO, and CH4 mainly) under an oxygen-deficient
condition. The syngas can be further combusted to generate
heat or electricity or upgraded to produce value-added chemicals
(e.g., pure hydrogen). Anaerobic digestion is a biochemical pro-
cess where organic waste is decomposed to produce CH4, CO2,
and digestate under the effect of anaerobic microorganisms. As
compared to gasification, anaerobic digestion is less energy inten-
sive but suffers from the weakness of low productivity.
 Chapter 1 The waste challenge 5

Recent development has been focused on converting waste into

value-added chemicals for applications in the industrial or trans-
portation sectors, such as biohydrogen, biomethane, bioethanol,
biodiesel, biochar, etc. (bio- is used to indicate the chemicals are
produced from waste biomass). A significant amount of these
chemicals have been produced out of conventional fossil fuele
based chemical processes. Displacing the chemicals with the
ones derived from waste biomass will lead to carbon abatement
and facilitate the development of the circular economy concept.
In general, the efficiencies of the waste-to-resource (resource
denotes energy and chemicals) technologies depend on the types
of waste feedstock, process conditions, and selection of technolog-
ical routes. The variety of technologies that recover valuable re-
sources from waste are expected to play an increasingly
important role in alleviating the challenges of SWM and climate
change.
The design of waste-to-resource systems needs to consider a
variety of factors beyond the technology, and also importantly
its relationship with the 3R strategy. Specifically, the waste-to-
resource approach needs to work in tandem with the 3R strategy,
which needs to be further supported by educational initiatives to
enhance public awareness for tackling the challenges. Mean-
while, reduced, reused, recycled, and recovered resources that
precisely match the socioeconomic, energy, and environmental
demands of end-users will accelerate the uptake of such initia-
tives and lead to higher public engagement. Successful addition
of the waste-to-resource technologies as a tier in the 3R hierarchy
is dependent on understanding of local context. This will under-
pin the development of a comprehensive and systematic hierar-
chical waste management roadmap that clearly defines the
relative roles and effects of the measures and includes the steps
or milestones needed to achieve waste pollution reduction.
The success of such a hierarchical strategy is contingent upon
the participation and cooperation of all the stakeholders (i.e., pol-
icymakers, investors, and consumers) along the SWM chain as well
as effective policy support. This means that the design of waste-to-
resource systems needs to be gauged in relation to socioeconomic
and environmental impacts that are some of the most significant
indices for evaluating the feasibility of the systems. The implemen-
tation of a waste-to-resource system is subject to its social accept-
ability and benefits, which is directly reflected by its ability to create
jobs and affect income, and indirectly by its effects on equality and
welfare development of local communities. The environmental
impacts are linked to the system’s ability to tackle the crises of
fossil fuel depletion and global climate change, as well as its
6 Chapter 1 The waste challenge

complication with the development of associated ecosystems. The

economic feasibility of waste-to-resource development critically
determines its sustainability and depends on (also affects) the
formulation of governmental subsidies. Although the different
stakeholders have different preferences on the impacts, it is im-
portant to consider all the three impacts during the decision-
making process for optimal planning.
The design of the supply chain and logistics of waste manage-
ment also critically determines the feasibility and impacts of
waste-to-resource systems due to the geographical distribution
of waste and consumer zones, weather variability, and the poten-
tial seasonality of waste feedstocks (Chaplin-Kramer et al., 2017;
Field et al., 2018). It has been shown that the waste collection
and transportation process accounts for the significant economic
factor for waste-to-energy development (Ascher et al., 2020).
Moreover, the varied compositions and physicochemical proper-
ties of waste imply the complexity of system design. On the one
hand, for the same type of waste, there are different technologies
available for processing and subsequent product upgrading,
depending on the types of targeted end-products (e.g., electricity,
heat, liquid transport fuel, biochar, etc.). On the other hand, for
the same type of end-product, multiple technologies and waste
feedstocks are available upon the design of the system. Hence,
there are vast possibilities of waste-to-resource system configura-
tions in terms of the choices of waste feedstock types, processing
technologies, and end-product types. This adds a complication of
spatial and temporal dimensions to the assessment of the poten-
tial of bioresources (defined as the resources recovered from
waste biomass in this book), and transportation network and
modes, distance, and intermodal-transportation becomes impor-
tant parameters upon the supply chain and logistics design.
To understand the potential contribution of waste-to-resource
to our environment, society, and ecosystems, it is essential to
develop a systematic database about the economic and environ-
mental impacts of waste-to-resource development under a feasible
range of waste-to-resource system and supply chain configura-
tions. Moreover, optimal configurations need to be identified
and combined with decision support tools, to allow the policy-
makers to make informed decisions about waste-to-resource ac-
tion plans. Considering the various possibilities of technology
and process alternatives, superstructure optimization based on,
e.g., mixed-integer programming techniques serves as an appro-
priate approach for optimal technology and process selection
by allowing systematic generation and automatic evaluation of
 Chapter 1 The waste challenge 7

design candidates based on process economics and environmental

sustainability (Gong & You, 2015). A multiobjective optimization
framework can be formed by integrating cost-benefit analysis
(CBA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) into the superstructure
optimization.
This book will introduce the fundamentals, development, and
applications of various types of waste-to-resource technologies
that are expected to play a major role in developing SWM prac-
tices in the future. This book will focus on two major analysis
and design methods of waste-to-resource development, i.e. CBA
and environmental LCA and assemble some basic data sets for
carrying out baseline analysis. Examples of LCA and CBA studies
and results will be summarized to illustrate the impacts of
different configurations of waste-to-resource developments. We
will also introduce the multiobjective optimization method in
terms of its application in the designing and planning of SWM
systems in the end. This book will serve as a starting point for
you to conduct waste-to-resource design with the availability of
theories and baseline data sets.

References
Ackerman, F. (2000). Waste management and climate change. Local
Environment, 5(2), 223e229.
Ascher, S., Li, W., & You, S. (2020). Life cycle assessment and net present worth
analysis of a community-based food waste treatment system. Bioresource
Technology, 305, 123076.
Bebb, J., & Kersey, J. (2003). Potential impacts of climate change on waste
management. UK: Environment Agency Bristol.
Blanco, G., Gerlagh, R., Suh, S., Barrett, J., de Coninck, H. C., Morejon, C. F. D.,
Mathur, R., Nakicenovic, N., Ahenkorah, A. O., & Pan, J. (2014). Drivers,
trends and mitigation.
Chaplin-Kramer, R., Sim, S., Hamel, P., Bryant, B., Noe, R., Mueller, C.,
Rigarlsford, G., Kulak, M., Kowal, V., & Sharp, R. (2017). Life cycle assessment
needs predictive spatial modelling for biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Nature Communications, 8(1), 1e8.
DEFRA. (2021). UK statistics on waste. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/874265/UK_
Statistics_on_Waste_statistical_notice_March_2020_accessible_FINAL_rev_v0.
5.pdf.
EC. (2018). Circular Economy: New rules will make EU the global front-runner in
waste management and recycling. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/
presscorner/detail/en/IP_18_3846.
Ferronato, N., & Torretta, V. (2019). Waste mismanagement in developing
countries: A review of global issues. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 16(6), 1060.
Field, J. L., Evans, S. G., Marx, E., Easter, M., Adler, P. R., Dinh, T., Willson, B., &
Paustian, K. (2018). High-resolution technoeecological modelling of a
8 Chapter 1 The waste challenge

bioenergy landscape to identify climate mitigation opportunities in cellulosic

ethanol production. Nature Energy, 3(3), 211e219.
Fischedick, M., Roy, J., Acquaye, A., Allwood, J., Ceron, J.-P., Geng, Y.,
Kheshgi, H., Lanza, A., Perczyk, D., & Price, L. (2014). Industry in: Climate
change 2014: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III
to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change. Technical Report.
Gabbar, H. A., Aboughaly, M., & Ayoub, N. (2018). Comparative study of MSW
heat treatment processes and electricity generation. Journal of the Energy
Institute, 91(4), 481e488.
Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., & Bleischwitz, R. (2019). How to globalize the circular
economy. Nature Publishing Group.
Gong, J., & You, F. (2015). Sustainable design and synthesis of energy systems.
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, 10, 77e86.
Hoornweg, D., & Bhada-Tata, P. (2012). What a waste: A global review of solid
waste management.
IEA. (2013). Waste to energy summary and conclusions from the IEA bioenergy
ExCo71 workshop. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/
2014/03/ExCo71-Waste-to-Energy-Summary-and-Conclusions-28.03.14.pdf.
Ioannidis, A., Chalvatzis, K. J., Leonidou, L. C., & Feng, Z. (2021). Applying the
reduce, reuse, and recycle principle in the hospitality sector: Its antecedents
and performance implications. Business Strategy and the Environment.
Karak, T., Bhagat, R. M., & Bhattacharyya, P. (2012). Municipal solid waste
generation, composition, and management: The world scenario. Critical
Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42(15), 1509e1630.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., Bhada-Tata, P., & Van Woerden, F. (2018). What a waste 2.0: A
global snapshot of solid waste management to 2050. World Bank Publications.
Lino, F. A. M., & Ismail, K. A. R. (2018). Evaluation of the treatment of municipal
solid waste as renewable energy resource in Campinas, Brazil. Sustainable
Energy Technologies and Assessments, 29, 19e25.
Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., & Corti, A. (2015). A review of technologies and
performances of thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste.
Waste Management, 37, 26e44.
Lu, J.-W., Zhang, S., Hai, J., & Lei, M. (2017). Status and perspectives of
municipal solid waste incineration in China: A comparison with developed
regions. Waste Management, 69, 170e186.
Makarichi, L., Jutidamrongphan, W., & Techato, K. (2018). The evolution of
waste-to-energy incineration: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 91, 812e821.
Mønster, J., Kjeldsen, P., & Scheutz, C. (2019). Methodologies for measuring
fugitive methane emissions from landfillseA review. Waste Management, 87,
835e859.
Negi, P., Mor, S., & Ravindra, K. (2020). Impact of landfill leachate on the
groundwater quality in three cities of North India and health risk
assessment. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22(2), 1455e1474.
Robert, K. W., Parris, T. M., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). What is sustainable
development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science
and Policy for Sustainable Development, 47(3), 8e21.
Waste
2
Abstract
This chapter introduces the classification of waste (i.e., industrial
waste, nuclear waste, agricultural waste and municipal solid waste) and
their generation characteristics and statistics. It focuses on agricultural
waste and municipal solid waste as they are more relevant to waste-to-
resource development. It explains the definitions of the compositions
(i.e., ultimate and proximate) and heating values of waste and the
properties of typical agricultural and municipal solid waste are sum-
marized. This chapter concludes with highlighting the importance of
waste-to-resource development and emphasizing that rural waste
management needs to be paid special attention.

Keywords: Agricultural waste; Composition; Heating value; Municipal

solid waste; Rural waste management; Waste-to-resource.

1. Introduction
According to the European Commission Waste Framework
Directive, waste is defined as any substance or object which the
holder discards or intends or is required to discard (EC, 2008). There
exist different waste classifications based on various criteria such as
sources, state, biodegradability, etc. This chapter considers the
source-based classification that categorizes waste into four types,
i.e., industrial, agricultural, municipal, and nuclear. Typical indus-
trial waste includes MSW incineration ash, iron and steelmaking
slags, cement dust, petroleum spent catalyst, etc. MSW incinera-
tion ash (fly ash and bottom ash) is the solid residue of the combus-
tion processing of MSW that serves to reduce the mass and volume
of MSW while recovering energy. Fly ash (w3e5 wt.% of raw MSW)
refers to the pulverized fine particles captured by filtration devices
post an incineration reactor, while bottom ash (w20e25 wt.% of
solid residue) normally consists of slag recovered from the base
of incineration furnace. In China, around 15 million tonnes of bot-
tom ash are produced in MSW incineration plants each year (Hu
et al., 2021). 17.6 million tonnes of bottom ash are produced
each year in the European Union, Norway, and Switzerland

Waste-to-Resource System Design for Low-Carbon Circular Economy. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822681-0.00004-9

Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 9
10 Chapter 2 Waste

(Blasenbauer et al., 2020). Some of the industrial waste contains

considerable heavy metals and pose a risk of environmental pollu-
tion if not disposed of properly. For example, waste batteries
contain Ni, Cd, and Ag, while electronic waste contains Sn, Au,
Ag, Ni, and Zn, their improper disposal will lead to the pollution
of soil and surface and/or groundwater (Pant et al., 2012).
Nuclear or radioactive waste is referred to as any material that
is either radioactive or contaminated by radioactivity above the
thresholds defined in associated legislation (IAEA, 2009). Typical
sources of nuclear waste include nuclear power stations, hospi-
tals, science laboratories, etc., in a variety of physical and chemi-
cal forms (e.g., aqueous waste, solid waste, liquid organic waste,
wet solid waste, and biological and medical waste) (Sljivi  c-
 
Ivanovic & Smiciklas, 2020). The rules and methods of industrial
and nuclear waste management are typically different from that
of agricultural and MSW managements with the necessity of
ensuring high socioenvironmental security. Agricultural and
municipal solid waste, on the other hand, refer to the ones from
which bioenergy or value-added chemicals could be derived,
will be the focus of this book, due to their great potential of facil-
itating renewable energy and resource generation.
The property and generation of waste vary considerably across
different types of waste and are important factors affecting the
design and implementation of waste management practices.
Different types of waste could differ significantly in their composi-
tions, making some technologies a preferred option upon a prelim-
inary design. For example, biochemical technologies such as
anaerobic digestion (i.e., the biological decomposition of organic
material into mainly “biogas” whose main constituents are
methane (50e70 wt.%) and carbon dioxide (30e50 wt.%)) is a desir-
able option for treating organic waste such as food waste featured
by a high moisture content (Ascher et al., 2020). The locality and
availability of waste generation is also linked to demand side man-
agement, making certain technologies a preferred option because
their production matches well with the demand of local customers.
For example, to utilize the palm oil mills’ solid (empty fruit bunch)
and liquid (palm oil mill effluent) waste, gasification and anaerobic
digestion were applied, respectively, to generate electricity to sus-
tain the operation of the mills (Aziz et al., 2017). Actually, the types
and availability of waste often comes as the first set of parameters
or conditions for selecting waste management technologies and
designing associated implementation and operation plans.

2. Agricultural waste
Agricultural waste is the unwanted waste discarded in the pro-
cess of agricultural activities and some typical examples of
 Chapter 2 Waste 11

agricultural waste are agricultural product processing waste (e.g.,

crop stalks), plant waste, livestock and poultry manure, rural
household waste, silage plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides,
wastes from farms, poultry houses and slaughterhouses, etc.
(Ramírez-García et al., 2019). It is an important constituent of
biomass resource and is featured by wide availability, large quan-
tity, and biodegradability.
The generation of agricultural waste experienced significant
increase because of the expansion of agricultural production
that has been tripled during the past 50 years (Duque-Acevedo
et al., 2020). The annual lignocellulosic biomass generated by
the primary agricultural sector was estimated to be about 200
billion tonnes worldwide (Ren et al., 2009). Being two of the largest
developing countries and agrarian economies, China and India
have abundant agricultural waste for renewable generation.
China had a total agricultural waste of 1.75
109 tonnes in
2013, consisting of 9.93
108 tonnes (56.82%) of crop straw,
4.52
108 tonnes (25.85%) of livestock and poultry manure, and
3.03
108 tonnes (17.33%) of forest residues (Dai et al., 2018).
For India, the biogas potential from agricultural waste via anaer-
obic digestion was predicted to be 65 billion m3/year in 2015 (Mit-
tal et al., 2019).
The agriculture sector is a significant contributor for GHG
emissions, consisting of emissions from agricultural soils, live-
stock, stationary combustion sources, and off-road machinery.
For example, this sector accounts for 10% of total EU-28 emis-
sions (440 MtCO2-eq.), of which 38% is about CH4 emissions
from enteric fermentation from cattle and 31% is about direct
N2O emissions from agricultural soils and fertilize use (Juvyns
et al., 2019). The sector accounted for 10% of UK GHG emissions
in 2018, with 56% and 31% being CH4 and N2O emissions, respec-
tively (DECC, 2015). Due to decreases in animal numbers and use
of synthetic fertilizers, GHG emissions from UK agriculture
decreased by 16% between 1990 and 2018. Agriculture is respon-
sible for 9% of total United States GHG emissions, with 81%,
11%, and 6% being CO2, CH4, and N2O, respectively (EPA, 2016).
The significant carbon footprint of the agriculture sector calls
for more sustainable development and effective utilization of agri-
cultural waste for decarburization.
There is a long history that agricultural waste is used as an
important source of energy and chemicals. The benefits of agri-
cultural waste utilization are not only contingent upon the types
of waste but also the means of utilization. Inappropriate utiliza-
tion of agricultural waste such as burning in stoves has been a
major cause of personal exposure to PM2.5. In China, 40% of
crop straw was burned in-field and contributes to 1.036 million
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Nourredin then extended his ravages, avoiding direct encounter with
Baldwin, who died February 10, 1163, and is said to have been
poisoned by the court physician at Antioch. The magnanimity of
Nourredin and his appreciation of the character of young Baldwin
were illustrated by his reply to those who urged this as an opportune
time for assault upon Jerusalem: “No; we should pity this people’s
sorrow, for they have lost a prince whose like is not now left in the
world.”
Amaury (Amalric) succeeded his brother, Baldwin III., on the throne.
Had his gains equalled his ambition, his power would have
dominated far beyond any boundaries the Christian sword had as yet
set to the kingdom of Jerusalem.
The Moslem world was nominally divided between the Syrian caliph
of Bagdad and the Egyptian caliph of Cairo. Egypt was wretchedly
governed. The caliph of Cairo was but a creature of his viziers.
Amaury, seeing the possibility of extending his domains to the Nile,
took arms against him. In 1163 he sent an army which might have
held the country, had it not been driven out by the enemy’s flooding
the valley of the Nile. One party in Egypt invoked the assistance of
Nourredin, who sent as his general Shirkuh the Kurd, uncle of
Saladin. Amaury accomplished against him the capture of Pelusium
in 1164. In 1167 he took Alexandria, commanded at the time by
young Saladin. He later penetrated to Cairo and laid El Fostat in
ashes. In 1168 Shirkuh renewed the war. Amaury, marching from
Egypt to meet his antagonist in the desert, was flanked by that
general, who suddenly occupied the land left undefended. Amaury,
who had married a niece of the Emperor Manuel, made with the
Greeks an unsuccessful attack upon Damietta. Here the Christians
felt the hand of one who was destined ultimately to overthrow all
their power in the East. Saladin was in command. On the death of
Shirkuh he had been appointed vizier by the caliph of Cairo. The
caliph, wearied of being controlled by designing and capable men
who absorbed in their own interests the power they defended,
selected Saladin, thinking that the young man’s inexperience would
be less of a menace to the caliphate.
Nourredin, however, divined the genius of the young vizier and
assigned to him the supreme command in Egypt. He then deposed
the caliph, and with his reign brought to an end the dynasty of the
Fatimites, which for two hundred years had held the land of the Nile.
Thus Nourredin ruled supreme from Babylonia to the desert of Libya.
Only the kingdom of Jerusalem marred the map of his dominion. To
reconquer this for Islam was his incessant purpose. With his own
hands he made a pulpit, from which he promised the faithful one day
to preach in the mosque of Omar on the temple site.
But the Moslem world was already attached to one destined to be
greater than Nourredin. The youth of Saladin had been one of
apparent indolence and dissipation, but he veiled beneath his
indifference the finest genius and most unbounded ambition. As
soon as he felt the possession of power he assumed a
corresponding dignity, and men recognized him as one appointed of
Heaven. Turbulent emirs, who had ignored him as a chance holder
of position, now sat reverently before him. Even the priests were
struck with the sincere austerity of his devotion. The caliph of
Bagdad bestowed upon him the distinguished dignity of the vest of
honor. Poets began to mingle his name with those of heroes as the
rising star. The pious included it in their prayers as the hope of Islam.
Knowing that experience is often wiser than genius, Saladin
judiciously guarded himself from the errors of youth by associating
his father, Ayoub, with him in the government of Egypt. Nourredin,
whose successful career had allowed him no jealousy of ordinary
men, showed that he was restless at the popularity and ability
displayed by his young subaltern, and was preparing to take Egypt
under his own immediate government when death, his first
vanquisher, came upon the veteran (May, 1174). Saladin
immediately proclaimed himself Sultan of Egypt, and hastened to
secure the succession of Nourredin’s power as Sultan of Damascus.
Two months later (July, 1174) Amaury followed his great competitor
to the grave, and the kingdom of Jerusalem fell to his son, Baldwin
IV., a leprous lad of thirteen years. The personal contrast of this
sovereign with Saladin was ominous of the contrast between the
coming history of the two powers they respectively led. The
education of Baldwin was conducted by William of Tyre, the chief
historian of this period. The regency of the kingdom was disputed by
Milo de Plausy and Raymond, Count of Tripoli. Raymond was great-
grandson of Raymond of Toulouse, the renowned leader of the first
crusade, and inherited, together with his ancestor’s bravery, his
impatience and passion for personal precedence. He deemed that
he had a right to the highest emoluments of the kingdom as
compensation for having suffered eight years’ imprisonment among
the Infidels. Milo was elected regent by the barons, but was shortly
afterwards assassinated by unknown hands on the street. Raymond
succeeded to the regency. The suspicion of having instigated the
murder of his rival was supplemented by a later suspicion that he
secretly betrayed the Christian cause in the interest of Saladin. It is
not necessary to believe this, as the prowess of the new ruler of
Egypt is sufficient to account for his successes. Raymond was
unwise in his movements; he busied himself with a wretched attempt
upon Alexandria, and then made truce with Saladin in the north just
at a moment when peace enabled the young Saracen to strengthen
his power over his Mohammedan neighbors.
In time Baldwin IV. took the reins into his own hands. Saladin was
pouring his forces over the Holy Land. His newly organized troop of
Mamelukes formed his body-guard. Baldwin shut himself up in
Ascalon, but soon the general devastation of his kingdom maddened
the Christians to desperation. They issued from Ascalon with such
fury that the Egyptian army was swept from the field and but few of
Saladin’s soldiers lived to accompany their young leader back to
Cairo.
This defeat, far from depressing the courage of Saladin, only taught
him new lessons of caution. Little by little his sword carved away the
Christian kingdom, until Baldwin was forced to sign a truce. Renaud,
Lord of Carac, broke this compact, and with the aid of an army of
Templars plundered the Moslem caravans, massacring defenceless
men and capturing the women. He made an incursion as far as
Arabia, and announced his purpose of going to Mecca to plunder the
tomb of the Prophet. But the swift riders of Saladin were upon his
track. Renaud barely escaped, many of his troops being captured.
Most of these were put to death in Egypt, a few being reserved as
victims in the annual sacrifice at Mecca. Saladin was infuriated by
Renaud’s breach of faith, and won the title of “Scourge of God,” even
among the Christians, by the swift and fearful retaliation which he
took upon the cities of northern Palestine.
The increasing leprosy of Baldwin rendered him incapable of
discharging his royal duties. A sort of political leprosy or dry-rot
seemed to infect the state. The crown retained its shape, but not its
lustre, for it could not control the internecine strife of the Christian
barons, who waged war upon one another from their mountain
fastnesses. The Hospitallers and Templars, too, combined against
the priesthood, and hooted and shot at them as they went to the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The priests retaliated by gathering the
arrows and placing them on the Mount of Olives, calling heaven to
avenge the insult offered to its ministers. The various nations
represented by the influx of pilgrims added to the confusion by
reviving in Palestine the prejudices of sections of Europe. Vice
everywhere had open license. William of Tyre, in describing the
condition of affairs, drops his pen, lest his readers should accuse
him of defaming human nature by his recital. Agents were sent to the
courts of Europe, appealing for succor to the kingdom, which was
falling to pieces in punishment of its own demerits. The piety of
Christendom made no response except in pity for a government
which they called “Christ’s Second Crown of Thorns.”
Baldwin IV. died in 1185. Baldwin V., a child, had been crowned as
his successor two years before. This prince was the child of Sibylla
by her first husband, the Marquis of Montferrat. Since the death of
the marquis she had married Guy of Lusignan. Little King Baldwin
died a year later (1186). Sibylla was accused of having poisoned her
own child to advance her new husband’s interest. The suspicion was
not lessened by her adoption of a disgraceful ruse to gain for Guy
the vacant throne. As the daughter of one king of Jerusalem and
sister of another, she might have held the sovereignty but for the
opposition to Guy, whom she associated with herself in the
government. She proposed to the chiefs that she should divorce
Guy, saying, “If a divorce takes place between me and my husband,
I wish you to make me sure by your oaths that whomsoever I shall
make choice of for my husband you will choose for your head and
lord.” She then swore that she would award him whom she regarded
as the ablest defender of Jerusalem with her hand and crown. This
was agreed to. The patriarch solemnly announced her divorce and
placed the crown in her hands. Sibylla, to the surprise of all, turned
to Guy and, placing the crown upon his head, boldly declared, “I
make choice of thee as king and as my lord; for whom God hath
joined together let not man put asunder.” The audacity of Sibylla
apparently cowed the warriors about her; they acquiesced, and
some even applauded the cleverness of her deceit.
 CHAPTER XXVI.
BATTLE OF TIBERIAS—FALL OF JERUSALEM.

In the meantime Saladin had gathered into his hand the reins of
Egypt and western Asia. In 1185 the Christians of Palestine sent an
appeal for aid to all the courts of Europe. The imminence and
magnitude of the danger led them to select the most important
dignitaries as their messengers: Heraclius, the Patriarch of
Jerusalem, together with the Grand Masters of the Hospitallers and
Templars. The ambassadors offered the crown of Jerusalem to King
Henry II. of England, presenting him with the keys of the Holy
Sepulchre and of the tower of David. The appeal of the East was
seconded by Pope Lucius, whose letter to Henry shows that Europe
dreaded as much as it pretended to despise the new Moslem leader.
The letter read: “For Saladin, the most inhuman persecutor, has
arisen to such a pitch in his fury that, unless the vehement onset of
his wickedness is checked, he may entertain an assured hope that
all the Jordan will flow into his mouth, and the land be polluted by his
most abominable superstitions, and the country once more be
subjected to the accursed dominion of the most nefarious tyrant. By
the sorrows thus imminent, we entreat your Mightiness with a
palpitating heart,” etc. But neither King Henry’s conscience nor his
hope of gaining a brighter crown in heaven was sufficient to lure him
from projects nearer home.
Saladin quickly verified the Pope’s estimate of his ability. In May,
1187, he overthrew the Templars in a battle at Nazareth. With eighty
thousand horse he then invested and crushed Tiberias on Galilee.
The citadel of this place alone remained untaken. The Christians
massed fifty thousand men on the plain of Hattîn, above the city, for
one supreme endeavor. The boldest feared the result. The sight of
the wood of the True Cross gave a martyr courage rather than hope
of success. Raymond, whose bravery no man questioned, made an
address to the assembled barons, counselling retreat. He said: “In
this army is the only hope left to the Christians of the East. Here are
gathered all the soldiers of Christ, all the defenders of Jerusalem.
The archers of Saladin are more skilful than ours, his cavalry more
numerous and better trained. Let us abandon Tiberias and save the
army.” To lose that battle in the open plain would be, as Raymond
foresaw, to lose everything. To retreat might force the enemy to fight
against strongholds, when the advantage would be on the Christians’
side.
This discreet counsel of the veteran was derided by the Master of
the Templars, who openly taunted Raymond with some secret
alliance with Saladin. Raymond rejoined, “I will submit to the
punishment of death if these things do not fall out as I have said.”
The barons were for following the advice of the veteran, but King
Guy, after various changes of mind, gave the fatal order for battle.
The day (July 4, 1187) was excessively hot. The Christians, worn out
with the march, advanced to the fight, sustained chiefly by the
desperation of their resolve. The Mussulmans occupied the vantage-
ground on the hills which make the western shore of the Lake of
Tiberias, and welcomed their adversaries’ approach with a furious
discharge of arrows. Then suddenly, as lightning through a pelting
storm, the white turbans and cimeters of the Saracen cavalry, led by
Saladin in person, flashed across the field. In the language of the
Arabic chronicler: “Then the sons of paradise and the children of fire
settled their terrible quarrel. Arrows hurtled in the air like a noisy
flight of sparrows, and the blood of warriors dripped upon the ground
like rain.”
The True Cross, which had animated the Christians’ courage, was
an occasion of their weakness; for, despairing of victory through their
own valor, they sought the protection of the emblem of their religion.
Saladin said afterwards that the Franks flew round the cross like
moths round a light. Again and again the sultan drove his squadrons
through the thickest ranks of his opponents, and would that day have
sealed the Christians’ fate had not night given recess to the battle.
During the darkness the Christians closed their ranks in dense array.
The Saracens, having superior numbers, adopted the opposite plan
and extended their lines, so that when morning broke they
surrounded their antagonists on every side. The Christians in vain
tried to break the cordon, which was steadily drawing closer and
closer, limiting the space within it as one by one the doomed knights
fell. The Saracens fired the grass of the plain. Swords flashed
through the lurid smoke, and the bravest, whom arms could not
daunt, dropped from suffocation. The Templars and Hospitallers
maintained the battle all day long, rallying about the cross; but that
symbol was ultimately taken. It was being borne by Rufinus, Bishop
of Acre, when he fell, pierced with an arrow. Says a contemporary
writer: “This was done through the righteous judgment of God; for,
contrary to the usage of his predecessors, having greater faith in
worldly arms than in heavenly ones, he went forth to battle equipped
in a coat of mail.”
Guy was a captive, together with the Master of the Templars and
many of the most celebrated knights, who had failed to find death,
though they sought it. Raymond cut his way through the line of
Saracens, who praised his amazing valor as they witnessed his
exploit, while the Christians denounced him for connivance with the
foe.
A scene followed which showed the temper of Saladin. The
conqueror received King Guy and his surviving nobles in a manner
to lessen, if possible, their chagrin for the disaster. He presented to
the king a great goblet filled with drink, which had been cooled in the
snows from the Lebanons. Having drunk from it, Guy passed the cup
to Renaud, the man who had violated the truce in former years.
Saladin could be magnanimous to a worthy antagonist. So great was
his self-command that he observed the most punctilious etiquette
even in the rage of a hand-to-hand fight. But to the false and
treacherous he could show no mercy. The sight of the truce-breaker
fired him with uncontrollable frenzy; he exclaimed, “That traitor shall
not drink in my presence.” He gave Renaud the instant choice of
death or acceptance of the religion of Mohammed. Renaud refused
to subscribe the Koran. Saladin smote him with the side of his sabre,
a mark of his contempt. At a signal a common soldier swirled his
cimeter, and the head of Renaud fell at King Guy’s feet.
Towards the Templars and Hospitallers the sultan had conceived
similar hatred from the conviction that they regarded their covenants
with their enemies too lightly. As these knights of the white and the
red cross were led past him Saladin remarked, “I will deliver the
earth of these two unclean races.” He bade his emirs each slay a
knight with his own hand. Neither the defenceless condition of the
captives nor the protestation of his warriors against this cruelty
produced any compunction in the breast of the resolute conqueror.
Four days later St. Jean d’ Acre fell under Saladin’s assault; but the
people were spared and allowed to depart with all their movable
property. The churches were converted into mosques, and
resounded with prayers and thanksgiving to the Prophet. The yellow
flag of Saladin soon floated from the walls of Jericho, Ramleh, Arsuf,
Jaffa, and Beirut. Ascalon resisted for a while, in spite of the threats
of the conqueror and the entreaty of his prisoner, King Guy, that the
garrison should not prolong the useless conflict. The defenders of
the city refused submission unless the victor should pledge the
safety of the women and children and the liberty of the king. Saladin
honored their bravery by acceding to these conditions, and Ascalon
became his possession (September 4th).
Two weeks later (September 18th) his troops invested Jerusalem.
Sending for the principal inhabitants, he said to them: “I, as well as
you, acknowledge Jerusalem to be the house of God; I will not defile
its sanctity with blood if I can gain it by peace and love. Surrender it
by your Whitsuntide, and I will bestow upon you liberty to go where
you will, with provisions in plenty and as much land as you can
cultivate.” The reply of the Christians was valiant: “We cannot yield
the city in which died our God; still less can we sell it to you.” Saladin
then swore to avenge the slaughter perpetrated by the Christians
upon the Moslems when, under Godfrey, the first crusaders had
captured Jerusalem and massacred its inhabitants.
The assault was furious and met with equal valor. Within and
without, the walls were fairly buttressed with the bodies of the fallen.
It was not until the principal gate was undermined, the ramparts
tottering, and the soldiers of Saladin occupying some of the towers,
that Balian d’Iselin, the commandant, proposed to accept the
conditions the Christians had rejected before the fight. “It is too late,”
replied Saladin, pointing to his yellow banners, which proclaimed his
occupancy of many places along the walls. “Very well,” replied
Balian; “we will destroy the city. The mosque of Omar, and the
mysterious Stone of Jacob which you worship, shall be pounded into
dust. Five thousand Moslems whom we retain shall be killed. We will
then slay with our own hands our wives and children, and march out
to you with fire and sword. Not one of us will go to paradise until he
has sent ten Mussulmans to hell.” Saladin again bowed to the
bravery which he might have punished, and accepted the
capitulation (October 2, 1187).
The Christian warriors were permitted to retire to Tripoli or Tyre,
cities as yet unconquered by Saladin. The inhabitants were to be
ransomed at a nominal sum of money for each. Many, however, in
their poverty could not produce the required amount. The fact,
reported to the victor, led to a deed on his part which showed his
natural kindliness, together with the exactness of his rule. The
ransom money could not be remitted; it belonged of right to the men
whose heroism had been blessed of Allah in taking the city. Saladin
and his brother, Malek-Ahdel, paid from their own purses the
redemption money for several thousand Christians, who otherwise,
according to the usages of war, would have become the slaves of
their conquerors.
On the day for the evacuation of the city Saladin erected his throne
at the Gate of David to review the wretched army of the vanquished
as it passed out. First came the patriarch and priests, carrying the
sacred vessels and treasures of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Next followed Queen Sibylla with the remnant of her court. Saladin
saluted her with great courtesy, and added words of seemingly
genuine consolation as he noted her grief. Mothers carried their
children, and strong men bore the aged and sick in their arms. Some
paused to address the sultan, asking that members of their families
from whom they were separated might be restored to them. Saladin
instantly ordered that in no case should children be separated from
their mothers, nor husbands from their wives. He permitted the
Hospitallers to remain in the city on condition of their resuming those
duties which their order was originally instituted to perform, and
committed to them the care of the sick who could not endure being
removed. Many writers are disposed to analyze the motives of
Saladin and to attribute his clemency to politic foresight in subduing
the hatred as well as the arms of his enemies. But surely the annals
of war are too barren of such acts of humanity to allow us to mar the
beauty of the simple narration; and the virtues of Christians in such
circumstances have not been so resplendent that they may not
emulate the spirit of one who was their noblest foe.
The new lord of Jerusalem purged the sacred city of what to him was
the taint of idolatry, the worship of Jesus. The mosque of Omar on
the temple site was washed within and without with rose-water. The
pulpit which Nourredin had made with his own hands was erected by
the side of the mihrab, towards which the people prayed as
indicating the direction of Mecca. The chief imam preached from it
on the glories of Saladin, “the resplendent star of Allah,” on the
redemption of Jerusalem, from which Mohammed had made his
miraculous night journey to Mecca, and on the holy war, which must
be continued until “all the branches of impiety should be cut” from
the tree of life.
The joy of the Moslem world had its refrain in the wails of Europe. It
is said that Pope Urban III., on hearing the news, died of a broken
heart. The minstrels composed lamentations as the captives did by
the rivers of Babylon. Courts and churches were draped in mourning.
The superstitious saw tears fall from the eyes of the wooden and
stone saints that ornamented the churches. The general gloom was
described by one who felt it as “like the darkness over the earth from
the sixth to the ninth hour, when Christ was crucified.”
 CHAPTER XXVII.
EUROPE BETWEEN THE SECOND AND THIRD
CRUSADES—SUPERSTITION—THE WALDENSES
—DEGRADATION OF THE PAPACY—FRANCE
UNDER LOUIS—ENGLAND UNDER HENRY II.—
RICHARD CŒUR DE LION.

Forty years had elapsed since the ill-fated crusade of Louis VII. and
Conrad (1147) to avenge the capture of Edessa by Zenghi, and the
crowning calamity, the fall of Jerusalem into the hands of Saladin
(1187). We may briefly note some of the conditions and changes in
Europe during this period.
Men were thinking, though the dense darkness of mediæval night yet
remained, and the spectres of superstition which inhabited the
human mind were as many and as strange as ever. For example, the
year 1186 was looked for with alarm by the people of northern
Europe, because of the predictions of astrologers that certain
conjunctions of the stars then betokened dire evils to mankind. In the
language of a contemporary: “The planets being in an aërial and
windy sign, ... there shall arise in the East a mighty wind, and with its
stormy blasts it shall blacken the air and corrupt it with poisonous
stench.... The wind shall raise aloft the sands and dust from the face
of the earth, and utterly overwhelm such cities as Mecca, Baldac
[Bagdad], and Babylon. The regions of Egypt and Ethiopia shall
become almost uninhabitable. In the West shall arise dissensions,
raised by the wind, and seditions of the people shall take place; and
there shall be one of them who shall levy armies innumerable, and
shall wage war on the shores of the waters, on which a slaughter so
vast will take place that the flow of blood will equal the surging
waves. This conjunction signifies the mutation of kingdoms, the
superiority of the Franks, the destruction of the Saracenic race,
together with longer life to those who shall be born hereafter.”
Other astrologers blew their star-blasts of similar warning. More
startling still were the reported words of a pious monk, which he
chanted while in a trance, confirming the astrologers with rhapsodic
quotations from Scripture and the Greek mythologists. The popular
consternation was somewhat allayed by Pharamella the Moor,
whose humanity was stronger than his religious bigotry, and led him
to write to the Christian Bishop of Toledo, from the tower on which he
was watching the stars, that their prognostications of the “aërial or
windy signs” were wrong; but that there would be sufficient force of
evil abroad in the atmosphere to produce “scanty vintage, crops of
only moderate average, much slaughter by the sword, and many
shipwrecks.” The most serious chroniclers of the time still associated
as effect and cause the rise and fall of kings and the issue of battles
with natural phenomena of comets, eclipses, and storms. Epidemic
madness continued to see celestial warriors through the dust of
earthly combat, and the ubiquitous presence of the mother of God in
churches and cells, in the silence of the roadway, and, in company
with Mary Magdalene, trudging along amid bands of pilgrims. Men
visited purgatory and returned to describe its burning floor and the
writhing shapes of its inhabitants. Indeed, the human mind was not
yet sufficiently awake to know that it had been dreaming.
Yet here and there were those who threw off the age delusion. The
logic of Abélard and the love of liberty voiced by Arnold of Brescia
roused more than one of the sleepers, who kept awake and jostled
their fellows.
Thus the sect of the Waldenses foretokened the rise of modern
Protestantism. Peter Waldo, a wealthy merchant of Lyons, was
afflicted with the rigors of ecclesiastical rule, which robbed more than
it protected the people, and with the dogmatic traditions of the
church, which were being manipulated as strangling strings about
the mind. He threw off these restraints; he devoted his large fortune
to the relief of the poor and organized a brotherhood of kindred
spirits, who took the name of the Poor Men of Lyons. There had as
yet been no attempt to teach the masses the simple religion of Jesus
as contained in the Scriptures, Jerome’s Latin Bible of the fourth
century being the only translation in use. Waldo secured a rendering
of the four Gospels into French. The reading of this by the people led
them to dissent from the assumptions of the Roman Church, to
question its sacraments, and to deny to the priesthood the sole
prerogative of preaching and administering religion. Waldo and his
followers claimed liberty to expound the Word of God according to its
own rules, and to interpret its precepts in the light of reason and
prayer-illuminated conscience.
The Waldenses were at once proceeded against by the Bishop of
Lyons as heretics and rebels. His judgment was confirmed by the
anathemas of the papal see. Waldo and his friends fled to the
mountains of Piedmont and Dauphine. In 1179 the new doctrines
were denounced by the Third Lateran Council. Waldo died the same
year, having lived long enough to anticipate in his own person the
persecutions which were to make his sect forever famous among
martyrs.
The history of the Papacy during this period was humiliating. Popes
and antipopes strove for the seat of St. Peter. The hierarchy invoked
the aid of the Emperor of Germany, Frederick Barbarossa, to
overturn the republic of Rome, which Arnold of Brescia had inspired.
That leader atoned for his audacity by being hanged and burned.
Barbarossa was, however, equally determined that the secular
power of the popes should not be rebuilt upon the ruins of Roman
independence. Italy was laid waste by the armies of the empire, until
the centre of Christendom was disgraced by scenes as cruel as
those which marked the contention of Christian and Turk in the East.
France was scarcely less unfortunate. Louis VII., shortly after his
return from Palestine, divorced his queen, Eleanor, who became the
wife of Henry of Anjou, afterwards Henry II. of England, and added to
the possession of England the territories of Aquitaine and Poitou,
leaving to the French monarchy less than half of what had been, and
was again to be, the land of France. Guizot remarks: “This was the
only event under Louis’s reign of any real importance, in view of its
long and bloody consequences to his country. A petty war or a sullen
strife between the kings of France and England, petty quarrels of
Louis with some of the great lords of his kingdom, some vigorous
measures against certain districts, the first bubblings of that religious
fermentation which resulted before long, in the south of France, in
the crusade against the Albigensians—such were the facts which
went to make up with somewhat of insipidity the annals of this reign.”
Kingship, on the death of the Abbé Suger, Louis’s prime minister,
steadily declined, until Philip Augustus opened for it a new era of
strength and progress. Philip had been seven years on the throne
(from 1080) at the time of the capture of Jerusalem.
England at the beginning of this period was distressed with the war
between King Stephen and Matilda. Churches were converted into
fortifications, and castles into prisons. For nineteen years the country
was so ravaged by the contending parties that, in the language of
the contemporary chronicler, “to till the ground was to plough the
sea,” and brave men, “sickened with the unnatural war, put on the
white cross and sailed for a nobler battle-field in the East.” With the
son of Matilda, Henry II., the dynasty of the Angevins, or
Plantagenets, was established. Inheriting Normandy from his mother,
and acquiring by his marriage with Eleanor her estates, at the age of
twenty-one Henry II. ruled from the Arctic Ocean to the Pyrenees.
“Though a foreigner, never speaking the English tongue, he seems
to have possessed something of the spirit which produced the
subsequent Anglican civilization. He abolished feudalism as a
system of government, and left it little more than a system of land
tenure. It was he who defined the relations established between
church and state, and declared that in England churchman as well
as baron was to be held under the common law” (Norgate). Though
his quarrel with and murder of Thomas à Becket left in suspension
the Constitutions of Clarendon, which gave the kingship
preëminence over the hierarchy, the principles of that document
were soon revived. Henry II. admitted no papal legate into England
without an oath not to interfere with any royal prerogative. Though he
repented the death of Becket, he forced the monks of Canterbury to
elect a successor of his own nomination.
Perhaps the most important progress of Henry II.’s reign was marked
by the Assizes of Clarendon (1166), which gave to England the
beginning of trial by jury. A grand jury of twelve men was to hear all
accusations, and only on sufficient evidence allow further procedure,
although the final trial of a case was, until 1216, allowed to proceed
according to the laws of Ordeal and Combat. Circuit judges were
also appointed, subject only to the king and his council as a court of
appeal.
In 1155 Ireland was given over to the conquest of Henry by Pope
Hadrian for one penny a house, to be paid into the papal treasury;
for, said the Holy Father, “all the islands on which Christ, the Sun of
justice, has shone belong to the see of St. Peter.” Henry’s victory
over William of Scotland also gave him the ascendency in that
kingdom. Thus was woven the substance of the band which now
holds together Great Britain.
The reign of Henry II. was brought to a close in personal disaster. At
Le Mans in France he was beaten in battle by his son Richard, who,
in conjunction with King Philip Augustus, had raised an unfilial hand
against his father. Henry died, cursing God and muttering, “Shame!
shame on a conquered king!”
Richard I. (Cœur de Lion) may be said to have been badly born
(September 8, 1157). His father, Henry II., though astute in kingcraft,
was among the most disreputable of monarchs in personal
character. St. Bernard said of Henry, “He comes of the devil, and to
the devil he shall return.” His remorse for the murder of Becket,
which seems to have been genuine, did not restrain him from
spending his later years as a notorious libertine, polluting every
innocent thing about him with his lecherous touch. Even childhood
was not safe from his lust. It is typical of the man and the times that
Geoffrey, for whom the king secured the bishopric of Lincoln, was his
own natural son by Rosamond, his concubine.
Richard’s mother, Eleanor, was perhaps of as unwholesome a sort
as his father. She never blushed except at the failure of some
intrigue which in our later age is regarded as shameful to her sex.
Her first royal husband, Louis VII. of France, though fascinated by
her beauty, could not abide her infidelities, and put her away. If the
chronicle be true, she avenged the marital sins of Henry II. by
slaying with her own hand his mistress, Rosamond.
Richard thus inherited much of the disposition which marred his
many nobler traits. Guizot’s portrait of him is fair: “Beyond
comparison the boldest, the most unreflecting, the most passionate,
the most ruffianly, the most heroic adventurer of the middle ages.”
The first suggestion of his title, “Lion-hearted,” is perhaps in the
pages of Roger de Wendover (died 1237), who, describing the
ravages Richard committed in France, says: “He invaded the territory
with more than a lion’s fury, carried off the produce, cut down the
vines, burned the villages, and demolished everything.” His first act
upon coming to power was to release his mother, Eleanor, from the
twelve years’ imprisonment she suffered at the hands of her
husband, Henry II. Then was remembered, and applied to her and to
Richard, a prediction of Merlin, the “Wizard of the North,” in the fifth
century: “The eagle of the broken treaty shall rejoice in her third
nestling.” Roger de Wendover thus interpreted the hitherto enigmatic
words: “The queen [Eleanor] is meant by the eagle, because she
stretches out her two wings over two kingdoms, France and
England. She was separated from the king of the French by divorce
on account of consanguinity, and from the king of the English by
suspicion and imprisonment; and so she was on both sides the eagle
of a broken treaty. ‘She shall rejoice in her third nestling’ may be
understood in this way: the queen’s first-born son, named William,
died when he was a boy; Henry, her second son, was raised to the
rank of king, and paid the debt of nature after he had engaged in
hostilities with his father; and Richard, her third son, who is denoted
by the ‘third nestling,’ was a source of joy to his mother.”
Richard was crowned September 11, 1189. Wendover, who may
have witnessed it, describes the coronation service. Richard was
conducted to Westminster in solemn procession, headed by
ecclesiastics bearing the cross, holy water, and censers; four barons
carried candlesticks with wax candles, two earls holding aloft two
sceptres, one surmounted with a golden cross, the other with a dove;
three earls followed, carrying three swords with golden sheaths; six
earls and barons carried a checker, over which were placed the royal
arms and robes, while a seventh held aloft a golden crown. Richard
swore upon the Gospels his kingly devotion, pledging to observe
peace, honor, and reverence towards God and the holy church, and
to exercise true justice to all his people. “After this they stripped him
of all his clothes except his breeches and shirt, which had been
ripped apart over his shoulders to receive the unction. He was then
shod with sandals interwoven with gold thread, and Baldwin,
Archbishop of Canterbury, anointed him king in three places, namely,
on his head, his shoulders, and his right arm, using prayers
composed for the occasion. Then a consecrated linen cloth was
placed on his head, over which was put a hat, and when they had
again clothed him in his royal robes, with the tunic and gown, the
archbishop gave into his hands a sword wherewith to crush all the
enemies of the church.... Then they placed the crown upon his head,
with the sceptre in his right hand and the royal wand in his left.”
Preceded by candles and cross, he went to the celebration of mass;
thence “to the dinner-table, and feasted splendidly, so that the wine
flowed along the pavement and walls of the palace.”
A very different scene, though not less characteristic of the age, took
place beyond the palace. Richard had issued an edict forbidding any
Jew to appear at his coronation. Some of the wealthiest Hebrews,
presuming upon the splendid gifts they brought, approached the
dining-hall. The populace, willingly interpreting the king’s mandate as
a license for persecution, set upon the Jews, not only at the palace
gate, but throughout the city. They murdered them without stint and
looted their houses. The king, essaying an investigation, found that
the chief dignitaries and citizens were leaders of the mob, and
stayed further inquiry. Other cities emulated the cruelty and greed of
the Londoners. At York five hundred Jews, who had fled for safety to
the castle, unable to defend themselves, slaughtered their own wives
and children to save them from worse fate, threw the dead bodies to
the Christians without the walls, and then set fire to their refuge,
perishing in the flames. The people to whom the Jew’s had loaned
money, the bonds of which were kept in the cathedral, seized these
evidences of debt and burned them in pious offering before the altar.
The chief interest of Richard, even surpassing the care of his throne,
was to fulfil the vow he had taken two years before (1187) to join a
new crusade against the Infidels in Palestine.
THE THIRD CRUSADE.
 CHAPTER XXVIII.
WILLIAM OF TYRE—BARBAROSSA.

With the news of the fall of Jerusalem came William, Archbishop of

Tyre (the chief chronicler for this time), to stir up Europe to avenge
the great disaster. This man possessed powers of speech equal to
those of his pen. He appeared before an assembly near Gisors,
where were gathered the bravest knights of England and France
under their respective kings, Henry II. and Philip Augustus. These
monarchs had laid aside the arms they were bearing against each
other, that they might hear the appeal to holier warfare. The
presence of such royalty did not restrain the fiery and indignant
eloquence of William of Tyre. He cried, “To meet you here I have
traversed fields of carnage. But whose blood have you been
shedding? Why are you armed with these swords? You are fighting
here for the banks of a river, for the limit of a province, for transient
renown, while Infidels trample the banks of Siloam. Does your
Europe no longer produce warriors like Godfrey and Tancred?” Even
the blood of Henry II., poisoned as it was with many sins, felt the
ardor of the appeal. He embraced his foe, Philip Augustus, with
tears, while they together put on the badge of the cross. Princes and
nobles followed the royal example, foremost among them Richard,
then Duke of Guienne. Upon those who did not enlist was imposed a
tax of one tenth of the value of their property, to be annually
continued in a tenth of their incomes. This, in attestation of the terror
inspired by the arms of the Saracen, was called “Saladin’s tithe.” The
appeals of William of Tyre were supported by the pastoral letters of
Pope Gregory VIII., which promised to all who should “undertake the
labor of this expedition ... plenary indulgence for their offences and
eternal life; ... and no person is to make any claim against the
property of which, on assuming the cross, they were in quiet
possession; ... they are not to pay interest to any person if they have
so bound themselves.” The Pope further ordered a Lenten fast on